los resultados de proceso de la tercera fase •

others observe it, they may make dispositional attributions of the gossiper’s behavior. In general, people are likely to make dispositional attributions that one’s behavior is caused by stable internal characteristics rather than situational forces (Gilbert & Malone, 1995) and use these behaviors to infer their goals, motives and traits (e.g., Reeder, Hesson- McInnis, Krohse & Scialabba, 2001; Ross, 1977). Specifically, gossip, as an

interpersonal behavior may be diagnostically important because it is intentional in nature. Engaging in gossip is seen as purposive and instrumental (Paine, 1967) as gossipers choose to share and discuss their evaluations of others’ behaviors. This deliberate,

voluntary decision to impart gossip may be seen as portraying the gossiper’s traits, motives and values (Heider, 1958) and, may therefore, play a central role in perceivers’ attributions and judgments (Tetlock & Lerner, 1999). Indeed, some recent network research finds that individuals’ abilities to convey gossip influenced their perceived levels of influence in organizational settings: the more an employee gossiped, the more informal influence they were granted by their colleagues (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, & Labianca, 2010). This positive benefit may have accrued because the gossiper was able to portray him- or herself as an expert on the norms of the group (Baumeister, et al, 2004), which in turn lead to perceptions of influence and status (Anderson, Spataro & Flynn, 2008). Thus, in this section I hope to explore two main dimensions of attributions,

trustworthiness and competence (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), that may result as an outcome of engaging in gossip.

Gossip Centrality and Attributions of Trustworthiness

Engaging in gossip may influence team members’ perceptions of the gossiper’s trustworthiness. In this positive perspective, trustworthiness, or the extent to which a person is seen as benevolent and honorable (Davis, Schoorman, Mayer, & Tan, 2000) may be signaled through the telling of gossip for a number of reasons. First, from a dyadic perspective, the process of exchanging gossip indicates that the gossiper is

intentionally choosing to share a confidence or a private opinion with a recipient suggests that that the recipient is trusted by the gossiper (Yovetich & Drigotas, 1999). Because

trust is likely to develop through a spiral (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), such that when someone trusts us, we are more likely to trust them as well, the act of receiving gossip, accompanied by the gossiper’s trust may cause recipients’ to view him or her as being trustworthy. Across a series of dyadic interactions, centrality in the gossip network may result in an overall attribution of trustworthiness.

Attributions of trustworthiness can also be explained through the lenses of identity theory. Since, many gossip discussions tend to revolve around an “us versus them” – or we are better than they are- theme (Gottman & Mettetal, 1986), identity theorists would also suggest that gossipers establish themselves as part of an in-group, who through their evaluative discussion of a third party, who by default then becomes part of an “out- group”. Individuals who are central in a gossip network are likely to be perceived as part of the in-group and will be, in turn, viewed as more trustworthy (Brewer, 1991).

Last, trustworthiness may be inferred through a process of mutual verification. Because gossip usually requires, the two parties involved in the interaction to agree with one another (Eder & Enke, 1991; Leaper & Holliday, 1995), the cycle of corroboration and agreement triggers feelings of similarity, which in turn is likely to cause the gossip recipient to view the gossiper as trustworthy (Byrne, 1971; Byrne, Clore & Smeaton, 1986).

However, gossip can also have a negative impact on trustworthiness perceptions. Most of these negative perceptions are driven by the morally questionable nature of gossip. Many

recipients may view gossip as a strategic ploy to gain attention or power and further the gossipers’ own selfish self-interests at the expense of the target’s, and therefore may be less likely to trust them (Wilson, et al, 2000). Also, gossipers may be seen meddlesome and untrustworthy because of their betrayal of others’ secrets (Kelley, 2002; Percival, 2000) and because gossip breaks the implicit rules of friendship that include not talking badly about mutual friends and not betraying confidences (Emler, 1994). Last, because gossip is often viewed as unreliable (Rysman, 1977), it is possible that the communicator of that information will also be viewed as untrustworthy. As such I offer two competing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 12a: Centrality in the gossip network will be positively related to attributions of trustworthiness

Hypothesis 12b: Centrality in the gossip network will be negatively related to attributions of trustworthiness.

Gossip Centrality and Attributions of Competence

The social functions of gossip, information and norm enforcement, suggest that gossip is likely to have a positive effect on attributions of competence. In support of this claim, the more central an individual is in the gossip network, the more information they may have access to. In turn this information about the social environment may help the gossiper navigate complex social environments and achieve interpersonal goals (Hannerz, 1967). Because gossip serves to convey information that is often unavailable through other

channels (Ayim, 1994), or through other people, it allows gossipers who are central in the network to signal that they have access to and control over information Recipients may infer that the gossiper is not only in possession of a special understanding of the

organization’s social norms and values (Baumeister, Zhang & Vohs, 2004) but that they have control over the spread of this information. Because information is a valued resource in organizations (Etzioni, 1961), the gossipers’ information base may allow them to accrue reputations of expertise and competence (Dunbar, 1996). Furthermore, gossipers may also appear more competent and efficacious if they use gossip as an impression management strategy. Centrality in the gossip network may allow gossipers may choose to share information that allows them to socially compare themselves with the target and shows them in the best light, thus, allowing them to build positive impressions in the eyes of their recipients (Suls, 1977). To build perceptions of

competence, gossipers may also engage in another impression management strategy that includes making evaluative judgments of others to look worldly-wise and intelligent (Amabile, 1983).

On the other hand, the perception of gossipers is that they spend more time engaging in gossip than working and may be viewed as incompetent, lazy and unproductive. Because gossip is unrelated to the task at hand, people who choose to engage in it at work may be seen as shirking or focusing on irrelevant details. Lending support to the negative gossip- competence relationship, some recent findings suggest that managers penalized gossipers

with low performance ratings (Grosser, et, al 2010). As there is evidence for both sides of this question, the following competing hypotheses are posited:

Hypothesis 13a: Centrality in the gossip network will be positively related to attributions of competence

Hypothesis 13b: Centrality in the gossip network will be negatively related to attributions of competence.